-1- 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES 

CORP., 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

FOR PUBLICATION 

July 21, 2016 

9:00 a.m. 

v No. 327359 

Court of Claims 

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, LC No. 11-000033-MT 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

Before: WILDER, P.J., and MURPHY and O’CONNELL, JJ. 

PER CURIAM. 

 Plaintiff International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) appeals as of right the 

Court of Claims order granting, on reconsideration, summary disposition in favor of defendant 

Department of Treasury (the Department). We reverse and remand for entry of judgment in 

favor of IBM consistent with our Supreme Court’s directive in this case in Int’l Business 

Machines Corp v Dep’t of Treasury, 496 Mich 642; 852 NW2d 865 (2014). 

 In Int’l Business Machines, id. at 644-645, the Michigan Supreme Court opened its 

opinion by alluding to the issue presented, describing the nature of the case, and setting forth its 

holding: 

 In this case, we must determine whether . . . IBM[] could elect to use the 

three-factor apportionment formula under the Multistate Tax Compact (the 

Compact)[, MCL 205.581 et seq.,] for its 2008 Michigan taxes, or whether it was 

required to use the sales-factor apportionment formula under the Michigan 

Business Tax Act (BTA)[, MCL 208.1101 et seq]. The Department . . . rejected 

IBM's attempt to use the Compact's apportionment formula and, instead, required 

IBM to apportion its income using the BTA's sales-factor formula. 

 We conclude that IBM was entitled to use the Compact's three-factor 

apportionment formula for its 2008 Michigan taxes and that the Court of Appeals 

erred by holding otherwise on the basis of its erroneous conclusion that the 

Legislature had repealed the Compact's election provision by implication when it 

enacted the BTA. We further hold that IBM could use the Compact's 
-2- 

apportionment formula for that portion of its tax base subject to the modified 

gross receipts tax of the BTA. 

 Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals judgment in favor of the 

Department, reverse the Court of Claims order granting summary disposition in 

favor of the Department, and remand to the Court of Claims for entry of an order 

granting summary disposition in favor of IBM. [Emphasis added.] 

 The Department filed a motion for rehearing, and before the Supreme Court rendered a 

decision on the motion, the Legislature enacted 2014 PA 282, amending the BTA, retroactively 

rescinding Michigan’s membership in the Compact, effective January 1, 2008, and precluding 

foreign corporations such as IBM from using the three-factor apportionment formula that had 

been available under the Compact. The Department filed supplemental authority in support of its 

pending motion for rehearing, alerting our Supreme Court of the statutory amendment. 

Subsequently, the Supreme Court denied the motion for rehearing absent any explanation or 

elaboration. Int’l Business Machines Corp v Dep’t of Treasury, 497 Mich 894; 855 NW2d 512 

(2014). On remand, the Court of Claims initially entered judgment in favor of IBM as directed 

by the Supreme Court. However, it later granted the Department’s motion for reconsideration, 

determining that 2014 PA 282 represented an intervening change of law, thereby excepting 

application of the law of the case doctrine. 

 “When an appellate court remands a case with specific instructions, it is improper for a 

lower court to exceed the scope of the order.” People v Russell, 297 Mich App 707, 714; 825 

NW2d 623 (2012); see also Glenn v TPI Petroleum, Inc, 305 Mich App 698, 706; 854 NW2d 

509 (2014) (“The trial court erred by failing to comply on remand with the very specific 

directives of this Court.”); K & K Constr, Inc v Dep’t of Environmental Quality, 267 Mich App 

523, 544; 705 NW2d 365 (2005) (clear instructions in a remand order must be followed); 

Rodriguez v Gen Motors Corp (On Remand), 204 Mich App 509, 514; 516 NW2d 105 (1994) 

(“It is the duty of the lower court or tribunal, on remand, to comply strictly with the mandate of 

the appellate court.”). Here, the Court of Claims did not have any discretion or authority to rule 

in favor of the Department. The Court of Claims was specifically instructed to enter an order 

granting summary disposition in favor of IBM, and it erred by ultimately failing to do so. 

 The procedural posture of this case resulted in arguments regarding the applicability of 

the law of the case doctrine, which doctrine is subject to an exception where there is an 

intervening change of law. See People v Olear, 495 Mich 939; 843 NW2d 480 (2014); Grace v 

Grace, 253 Mich App 357, 363; 655 NW2d 595 (2002). In Grievance Administrator v Lopatin, 

462 Mich 235, 259-260; 612 NW2d 120 (2000), our Supreme Court explained the nature of the 

law of the case doctrine: 

 Under the law of the case doctrine, if an appellate court has passed on a 

legal question and remanded the case for further proceedings, the legal questions 

thus determined by the appellate court will not be differently determined on a 

subsequent appeal in the same case where the facts remain materially the same. 

The appellate court's decision likewise binds lower tribunals because the tribunal 

may not take action on remand that is inconsistent with the judgment of the 

appellate court. Thus, as a general rule, an appellate court's determination of an 
-3- 

issue in a case binds lower tribunals on remand and the appellate court in 

subsequent appeals. [Citations and quotation marks omitted.] 

 The Department maintains that the law of the case doctrine is not controlling because the 

legal question concerning the impact of 2014 PA 282 on IBM’s 2008 taxes was not passed on by 

the Supreme Court in its opinion, nor, expressly, in its order denying the Department’s motion 

for rehearing, and because 2014 PA 282 represented an intervening change of law, assuming that 

the doctrine was initially implicated. We conclude that the analysis in this case is not governed 

by the law of the case doctrine; however, contrary to the Department’s view, this does not mean 

that the Court of Claims was free to try anew under 2014 PA 282 the issue regarding the 

apportionment formula applicable to IBM’s 2008 taxes. Rather than the law of the case doctrine, 

we hold that the principle alluded to above that a lower court cannot exceed the scope of a 

remand order controls and is distinguishable from the law of the case doctrine. We find 

instructive a recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Stacy 

v Colvin, __ F3d __, __ (CA 9, 2016); slip op at 3, wherein the federal court, distinguishing the 

law of the case doctrine from what it coined the “rule of mandate,” observed: 

 The rule of mandate is similar to, but broader than, the law of the case 

doctrine. The rule provides that any district court that has received the mandate of 

an appellate court cannot vary or examine that mandate for any purpose other than 

executing it. The district court may, however, decide anything not foreclosed by 

the mandate. But the district court commits “jurisdictional error” if it takes actions 

that contradict the mandate. [Citations and quotation marks omitted.1

] 

 Although the terminology “rule of mandate” has apparently not been used in Michigan 

caselaw, it quite plainly embodies the well-accepted principle in our jurisprudence that a lower 

court must strictly comply with, and may not exceed the scope of, a remand order. Glenn, 305 

Mich App at 706; Russell, 297 Mich App at 714; K & K Constr, 267 Mich App at 544; 

Rodriguez, 204 Mich App at 514. Here, the Supreme Court mandated ministerial entry of 

judgment in favor of IBM, the mandate foreclosed all other possibilities and any renewed 

litigation over IBM’s 2008 business taxes, and the Court of Claims erred in taking an action that 

contradicted the mandate, effectively exceeding the remand’s jurisdictional scope. The 

distinction we recognize today between the law of the case doctrine and the rule of mandate, as 

implicated by the Supreme Court’s explicit directive in Int’l Business Machines, is further 

buttressed by the principles that the law of the case doctrine expresses the general practice of the 

courts, is discretionary, and is not a limit on the power of the courts. Locricchio v Evening News 

Ass’n, 438 Mich 84, 109, 109 n 13; 476 NW2d 112 (1991); Grace, 253 Mich App at 363. The 

plain and unambiguous remand directive cannot be construed as having provided any room for 

the exercise of discretion by the Court of Claims, and it most certainly placed a strict limit on the 

power of the Court of Claims on remand, which limit was exceeded. For all intents and 

 

1

 The Ninth Circuit concluded that an administrative law judge (ALJ) did not violate the rule of 

mandate in the case by taking new evidence on a matter, given that the “remand order did not 

preclude the ALJ from taking [the] new evidence.” Stacy, __ F3d at __; slip op at 3. 
-4- 

purposes, the case was over once it left the jurisdiction of the Michigan Supreme Court; there 

was not to be any further substantive litigation, proceedings, or decision-making. The Court of 

Claims was simply to perform the nondiscretionary, ministerial task of entering judgment in 

favor of IBM. Indeed, the Supreme Court itself had the option of entering the judgment. MCR 

7.316(A)(7) (Supreme Court may “enter any judgment . . . that ought to have been entered”). 

 Further, the Department’s position that the Court of Claims should be able to examine the 

issue of IBM's 2008 taxes under 2014 PA 282 is untenable. In Int’l Business Machines, 496 

Mich at 645, our Supreme Court conclusively determined that IBM could use the Compact’s 

apportionment formula for purposes of the 2008 taxes. Under the Department’s theory, the issue 

of the proper apportionment formula relative to IBM’s 2008 taxes could be litigated endlessly on 

the basis of any future statutory changes bearing on the question. Collateral estoppel principles 

preclude such an approach. See Monat v State Farm Ins Co, 469 Mich 679, 682-684; 677 NW2d 

843 (2004). Again, the case had effectively been concluded, except for the formal entry of the 

judgment. Additionally, it is well-established that “the Legislature may not reverse a judicial 

decision,” Gen Motors Corp v Dep’t of Treasury, 290 Mich App 355, 372-373; 803 NW2d 698 

(2010), and that “only the Supreme Court has the authority to overrule its own decisions,” 

People v Crockran, 292 Mich App 253, 256; 808 NW2d 499 (2011). If 2014 PA 282 is 

specifically applied in order to ascertain the apportionment formula available to IBM with 

respect to its 2008 business taxes, it would effectively result in the impermissible legislative 

reversal of Int’l Business Machines. Similarly, in ignoring the remand directive and ordering 

application of 2014 PA 282 to IBM’s 2008 taxes in connection to the apportionment formula, the 

Court of Claims essentially and improperly reversed the ruling in Int’l Business Machines. And 

recall that the Supreme Court was fully cognizant of 2014 PA 282 when ruling to deny the 

Department’s motion for rehearing. If the Supreme Court wishes to revisit the issue on an 

application for leave to appeal, it of course has that prerogative, but neither this Court nor the 

Court of Claims is in the position to alter the ruling and ignore the remand directive in Int’l 

Business Machines, 496 Mich 642. 

 Finally, this Court’s opinion in Gillette Commercial Operations North America & 

Subsidiaries v Dep’t of Treasury, 312 Mich App 394; __ NW2d __ (2015), does not and cannot 

change our analysis. Gillette addressed numerous state and federal constitutional arguments 

challenging 2014 PA 282 and the retroactive character of the legislation. This Court found that 

2014 PA 282 is constitutionally sound. Id. at 401. That said, the Gillette opinion could not 

overrule or reverse the Supreme Court’s earlier opinion in Int’l Business Machines and the 

resolution of the specific tax issues addressed therein. See Crockran, 292 Mich App at 256. 

IBM is entitled to the protection afforded it under the Int’l Business Machines decision, although 

with respect to other taxes not addressed in the opinion but caught under the umbrella of 2014 

PA 282, those taxes would be subject to 2014 PA 282 as construed by the Gillette panel. There 

is a distinction between applying 2014 PA 282, as upheld in Gillette, to alter the specific 

resolution in Int’l Business Machines of the apportionment-formula question pertaining to IBM’s 

2008 taxes, which is not permissible under the ruling and remand directive, and applying 2014 

PA 282 to all other pending tax disputes, recognizing that the Legislature was free to change the 

law in response to Int’l Business Machines. 
-5- 

 Reversed and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of IBM. We do not retain 

jurisdiction. Having fully prevailed on appeal, taxable costs are awarded to IBM under MCR 

7.219. 

/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder 

/s/ William B. Murphy 

/s/ Peter D. O'Connell